The EU, a monster
(excerpt from <a href="http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/20010910.php">THIS</a> article)

First, let me explain how the EU is actually governed - I will take the risk that you already know most of it. But there are some details that you may not yet be aware of. Secondly, I want to examine the underlying ideology behind the EU with which an attempt is made to justify its legality or legitimacy. Thirdly, I want to briefly touch upon the future, how long all of this will last, and what can be done against it.

First of all: how is the EU governed? Here one observation is very important. The EU is legally a hermaphrodite, actually an juridical monster that is very difficult to grasp. The EU is neither a confederation nor a Federal state. And it will not become either in the foreseeable future. This is where the problem starts. But I suspect that the EU was intentionally constructed in this way.

If I had to put it precisely I would say it was a democratically non-legitimated soviet government dictatorship since decisions are made in committees, councils and commissions. It is a bit embarrassing that my choice of words is reminiscent of a no longer existing system.

Why is the EU not a Federal state? A European Federal state would require a legislative assembly summoned by the people, a constitution, an elected European government and this would mean that a new sovereign power would then arise. Then we would have a European Federal state. But if this was the case, the French or English nuclear capabilities would naturally no longer exist. They would of course have to belong to the Federal state, the European government. They would have to be in charge. It is very unlikely that France could keep its seat in the permanent Security Council and its prerogatives as victorious power. This would also have to be Europeanised, of course.

The Germans are in favour of a Federal state. Whether this is right or wrong, practicable or not, is a very different question. Personally I don’t think it is feasible because a Federal state, a sovereign state, requires an electorate in Europe capable of communicating with one other, by means of a common language, too. It is a sad fact that nowadays in Germany far fewer students are learning French than in 1963, when the German-French Treaty was signed. This Federal state will never come into existence.

A confederation as De Gaulle and also Adenauer envisaged might be an alternative. But, this confederation would of course render the entire EU-Commission in Brussels as well as the entire bureaucracy with its 20,000 employees superfluous. The same goes for the enormous budget and the entire common agricultural policy. From the point of view of international law one would get an absolutely perfect solution if a confederation were formed. Then all the states would remain sovereign, working together as closely as possible, but as sovereign states.

However, neither this nor the other solution was chosen, but instead what I call the juridical monster was chosen. And in the end what we have is the situation today, a Europe that is not democratic but that is governed by councils, commissions and committees.

-----------------------------------------------

The "New European Soviet"
by Vilius Brazenas (excerpt from <a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/09-06-2004/eu.htm">THIS </a> article)

Many Americans, no doubt, tend to consider the Common Market and the EU as positive steps toward greater freedom. After all, it certainly is more convenient to have only one currency, the euro, when touring the continent. But whatever conveniences it may offer are offset by far more important concerns. Consider:

• Regulatory nightmare. British grocers have been arrested and fined for continuing to sell bananas and other produce by the pound instead of by the EU’s newly mandated metric weights. Similarly, the EU dictates on the shape and size of cucumbers, the consistency of marmalade, the texture and taste of chocolate, and thousands of other consumer items.

• Acquis communautaire. The EU already operates under the doctrine of acquis communautaire, which holds that all members must adopt EU law in its entirety, and further, that once the EU usurps the right to legislate in a new area, its authority in that area is guaranteed in perpetuity. Thus, power is guaranteed to flow in one direction — from the member states to the central government.

• Corpus juris. The corpus juris is the new legal code initiated by the Amsterdam Treaty that will, among other things, set up a European Public Prosecutor with over-riding criminal law jurisdiction throughout Europe. Habeas corpus, trial by jury and other important protections will be swept away.

• Unlimited migration. Signatory countries of the EU Schengen Agreement have given up their right to police their borders, thus allowing illegal aliens — including terrorists — to travel freely between countries. With Russia and other former Soviet states, along with Turkey, scheduled for membership, we will soon have millions of new migrants, including many Communists and militant Muslims migrating at will throughout Europe — much like what could happen to the U.S. if the FTAA is implemented.

• Economic control. With the establishment of the euro currency and the European Central Bank, the EU countries have lost control of their fiscal and monetary policy as well as their currencies.(Effectively ending any illusion of national sovereignity. The "central banks" rule, i.e. Rothschild&Co./Draken)

• Destroying agriculture. The EU’s Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) has taken control of nearly all agriculture and has nearly destroyed British agriculture.

• Power to tax. The EU already claims the authority to dictate indirect tax policies such as the VAT (value added tax) on clothes, food, public transport, fuel, construction, homes, etc. The Treaty of European Union declares that EU decisions to "impose pecuniary obligation on persons other than States shall be enforceable." That means direct taxes on individuals.

• Coercive military and police power. If the Eurocrats have their way, they will soon have European military and police forces to enforce their increasingly dictatorial edicts.

The architects of NAFTA and the FTAA openly cite the EU as the model for their proposed regional "common market" for the Western Hemisphere. For example, Mexican President Vicente Fox acknowledged on May 16, 2002: "Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish … an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union." At the time Fox was referring specifically to the three NAFTA countries (the U.S., Canada, and Mexico); the proposed FTAA would further develop the "ensemble of connections" while extending them throughout the Americas.

President Bush, President Fox and the "new world order" Power Elite at the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Council of the Americas have all adopted the deceptive terminology of the EU — "integration," "harmonization," "convergence" (all Marxist-Leninist doublespeak terms developed by the Kreml strategists to make Europe think the Russians are going to adjust themselves to the EU when in fact the EU is going to be hoodwinked to adjust to the Russians./Draken)— to describe their "American project." They have adopted an aggressive schedule, intending to do in a few years what it has taken the eurocrats decades to accomplish.

We can and must stop this treasonous plan — or Mr. Gorbachev and his ilk will soon be able to gloat about the "new American Soviet."

Mawashi

03-10-2005, 10:22 PM

Good post Draken.

I don't really keep up with EU affairs in too much detail, but its growth I find rather unnerving. While the US misadministration prefers the violent path to globalism, The EU is adopting the Fabian approach, gradually eroding the sovereignty of individual nations and their citizens for some nebulous goal of a new Europe, whatever that means.

Farmers are losing their right to a decent income in the wake of a socialist agricultural policy, nations are losing or have lost sovereign control of their currency, and unrepresentative swill in myriad committees and sub-committees are drafting endless rules and regulations to impose on people who don't want that level of governmental interference.

But you just don't get too much objective reporting on the subject in the media. They view the federalisation, or more accurately, socialisation, of the EU as a foregone conclusion. Or they shamelessly promote it. Moreover, pundits are often proposing it as a model for other groups of neighbouring countries such as SE Asia, the Americas and so on. As a result, people get very little exposure to the truth.

But today is Friday, dammit, and I'm not going to let the NWO ruin my weekend. Looking forward to some good hiking on Sunday.

nohope187

03-11-2005, 09:16 PM

Gorbachev is already gloating over Soviet Amerika from his little set up under the Golden Gate bridge in Frisco. I bet he's usually talking to Putin telling him how stupid and gullible Amerikans are. :-P

The first political step in forging a united Europe would be the withdrawal of all European governments from the United Nations, a hypocritical organisation if there ever was.

The ground for a European initiative must be carefully prepared; but the problems of concrete political tactics fall outside the scope of this essay. Here we can only point to what we believe must be the form and the spiritual and doctrinal basis of united Europe.

'Federalist' and 'associative' solutions, economic and military co-operation— these are all the manifestation of presuppositions about the organic character of Europe (or the lack of it). The condition of a truly European entity must be the binding force of an idea and tradition with which Europe is irrevocably linked. Some argue that the nation state, being not divinely ordained but the creation of determined groups successfully rising to a historical challenge, is a model for the merging European nation. According to this view the spiritual precondition for a united Europe exists in the myth of a common destiny defended by the 'national revolutionary' groups of Europe. This view is inadequate. The birth of the European nations was largely the work of dynasties representing a tradition of loyalty to a particular crown. In any case, the factors which created the European nations have been the very ones which have maintained European disunity from the Hundred Years War to the present day.

Among those who possess a spiritual and traditional understanding of Europe we can distinguish between those who believe in an Imperium of the kind referred to above, and those who talk of Europe as a nation. The concept of nationhood is in my opinion inappropriate. The notion of European unity is spiritual and supranational. Homeland nation, ethnic group subsist at an essentially naturalistic 'physical' level. Europe (Europa una) should be something more than this. The old nationalisms and resentments are only grafted onto Europe when a particular national domination is imposed by one nation upon the rest of Europe. The European Imperium will belong to a higher order than the parts which compose it, and to be European should be conceived as being something qualitatively different from being Italian, Prussian, Basque, Finnish, Scottish or Hungarian, something which appeals to a different aspect of our character. A European nation implies the levelling and cancelling of all 'rival' nations in or beyond Europe.

So far as 'European culture' is concerned it is these days the stamping-ground of the pragmatic European, the liberal, humanist intellectual. His 'European culture' is an appendage of 'democracy' and the 'Free World'. In this sense 'culture' is the stock-in-trade of the so-called 'aristocrat of thought', in reality the clothing of the parvenu, his badge of success. A genuine aristocracy of the intellect would not in any case be adequate for the task in hand; the re-animation of the European will and the sustaining of a revolutionary elite who could make this a political possibility. What is more, every time that we try to give the notion of 'European culture' concrete significance, we seem to run up against innumerable 'interpretations' which leave us with nothing conclusive at all. Everyone has their own idea about what European culture is and many Europeans feel reticent or even guilty about championing it and so the parvenus can speculate to their hearts' content in the reviews and colour supplements about all the latest developments in this or that field of art in such a way that 'culture' becomes entirely divorced from the 'serious world', from what matters. Ironically, much of what the defenders of culture admire plays a major role in helping to bring about a spiritual crisis and lack of confidence in European culture.

The 'Westernisation' of the world has meant that this decomposition extends across the world—thus Europe, from illuminism to communism has become the breeding ground of the very forces which work to destroy everything which is specifically European.

We must create a 'unity of fighters'. That is a pre-requisite. To set a vision of the world and of Europe aside as 'irrelevant' would be to sink into the morass of political partisan politics, a cynical affair without identity, without spiritual meaning. A united Europe, without a communal spiritual identity and sense of direction would become just one more power bloc. In what way would such a United States of Europe be spiritually distinct from the United States of America or China or be anything nobler than the organisation of African Unity? Europe must not be a stage towards the Westernisation of the world but a move against it, in fact a revolt against the modern world in favour of what is nobler, higher, more truly human.

Draken

08-05-2005, 02:10 PM

<a href="http://www.rense.com/general67/bewarethesecretheart.htm">Beware The Secret Heart
Of The European Union</a>
From Charlotte Iserbyt
dumbdown@blazenetme.net
8-2-5

This is a brilliant expose of the European Union and what WE can expect in the US if we do not kill FTAA. No wonder Gorbachev referred to the EU as "The New European Soviet"! This MUST be used in time to fight FTAA.

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt
Deliberatedumbingdown.com

From Al Burns

The article below was written by Ashley Mote, British member of the EU Parliament. In this article we can see the inevitable long term results of our (?) Congress' passage of WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, and (if we don't stop them) the Free Trade Area of the Americas. As Mote points out in this article, the numerous apparently innocuous treaties over the years ALL were leading up to the ultimate loss of control by individual countries.

Please distribute this information as widely as possible and as rapidly as possible. WE MUST STOP FTAA!

Beware The Secret Heart Of The EU
By Ashley Mote
8-1-5

The EU's mindset is committed to the French vision of a social Europe. The catastrophic economic consequences over decades is largely ignored. Double-digit unemployment and sluggish growth is blamed on anglo-saxon market forces.

Amongst the political elite in Brussels, the fight over the constitution was about securing a social Europe. It was about entrenching control, not liberating enterprise.

The president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, has publicly sided with the creation of an enterprise Europe. He realises that only by fundamental change can the EU's discredited Lisbon agenda be revived and a thriving knowledge-based economy achieved.

But the truth is - and he knows it - the incumbent bureaucracy is too strong, too deep-rooted, and too committed to a social Europe. They know, and he knows, that they will still be there long after he is gone.

We all know the EU is run by bureaucrats. But that's only the half of it. We all know the EU was created by European politicians 50 years ago. But that's only the half of it. We all hope the European Parliament has injected a degree of democratic accountability. But that's not even the half of it.

Facts coming to light in recent weeks paint a picture far worse. None of us knew the half of it.

Peter Le Cheminant wrote to The Daily Telegraph at the beginning of June 2005.

He said: "As a young and junior civil servant I had a ringside seat at the birth of the EEC. France and Germany had senior civil servants of high calibre with no small opinion of their own abilities. Both [countries] had lost a war, as they saw it, through the stupidity of their political masters.

"Small wonder then that they should have devised structures that gave real power to themselves, and minimised the roles of the member states. Their underlying doctrine was that democracy was all very well,

Mr Le Cheminant has done us a great service. His letter is of huge importance, and confirms what has long been suspected. The very structures of the EU were created to ensure that the electorates and their elected politicians did not have their hands on the levers of power.

Since then a succession of new treaties has further consolidated power in the hands of officials. Today, the EU is a unitary system of government, not only run by anonymous officials, but also controlled by them as well. There is a difference, and it is crucial.

Even the EU's public face - the unelected commission - is part of the charade. Power does not lie with them. It lies with the senior staff running their departments, entrenched by some 3000 working groups and committees on which no elected MEP sits. Indeed, until recently, the very existence of this mountainous bureaucratic support structure was almost unknown.

Intense questioning has revealed that more than half of these internal working groups and committees are active at any one time. Their membership is largely, if not entirely, made up of civil servants from member states and invited 'experts' and 'consultants' from the subject areas being considered for more regulation.

How else could the EU become so involved in the minutiae of everyday life in 25 member states? How else could they get so much wrong so often? On reflection, it was obvious. But now we have the evidence - and even more evidence of their secrecy.

Despite being elected MEPs, those of us investigating the internal workings of EU bureaucracy have been denied access to the lists of members of these groups, with one exception. Only one agenda has come to light. Once we started asking probing questions the shutters came down.

We cannot clarify the functions of these working groups and committees. We do not know who sits on them. We cannot see their agendas. We do not know what decisions they have taken, nor on what grounds. We do not know what their budgets are, how they are financed, or who approves their costs.

Indeed, we do not even know what powers they have been given, nor by whom. And we cannot get rid of them.

But one conclusion is certain. This is where the real power lies. Here is the beating heart of the European Union. Not just obscured, it has been carefully constructed to operate in secret.

We have arrived at the worst of all possible situations. The idea of a European superstate is now being rejected by electorates allowed a vote. Yet we are in serious danger of being left with the structures and methods to govern it. Without upheaval, the stranglehold remains.

This consequence of past treaties, and now the discredited EU constitution, are clear. Strip away the thousands of words and the real purpose of the constitution is obvious. The EU would no longer be the servant of the member states. It would have become their master.

Every previous treaty was a small step along that road. Europe has a long history of failed attempts to unite it. Each has ended in disaster of one kind or another. Each has produced some form of political or military ruination - sometimes both.

Considerable courage and wisdom is needed to avoid another such outcome. Rejection of the constitution has thrown up a new web of conflicting interests and pressures. But they are unlikely to stop the EU's well-developed, rigid and clandestine system of government by bureaucrats blindly moving us towards serious trouble.

President Barroso, former prime minister of Portugal and head of the commission, is charged with defending the EU in public, and articulating its plans. But he is not fully in control. He is no elected prime minister, not just in terms of legitimacy, but also in terms of decision-making.

The other 24 commissioners, each appointed by the other member states, are not his cabinet in any sense that the British might understand. Like Barroso, they are figure-heads. They take the flak in the public arena, and make announcements decided for them by their senior staff, with the guidance of the secret committees.

Of course there will have been endless discussions, arguments and disputes before each decision. But all behind closed doors.

Professional civil servants, especially 'les enarques' from that unique French institution L'Ecole Nationale d'Administration, cannot be under-estimated in such an environment. They have careers and the system itself to protect. Such considerations always come first.

These people are greatly skilled in the black arts of manipulating politicians to get what they want, even if that means hanging their minister out to dry in public if he proves uncontrollable.

Of course, officially above the commission sits a Council of Ministers, made up of ministers from member states. It meets from time to time, theoretically to determine policy. But the council is just more of the same elaborate illusion of accountable government.

Ministers regularly sign agreements on arrival at a meeting, confirming decisions they have supposedly come to make!

The European Parliament sits below this vast superstructure, even less of an obstacle to manipulative bureaucrats. It may be the EU's only elected institution, but it is nothing more than an elaborate and expensive fig-leaf, designed to create an illusion of accountable democracy. A condescending pat on the head for voters held in contempt.

The EU parliament holds no proper debates. Members are told when they can speak, and for how long. Backbenchers rarely have more than a minute, rarely more than once in a four-day sitting, and never to a crowded chamber. Backbenchers' opinions are of little account.

The parliament can neither initiate nor repeal legislation. It has direct control over neither the collection nor allocation of public funds. The most it can do is make proposals to the commission and try to amend legislation put before it. Usually that just means slowing it down. Anything rejected will return in a slightly different form later.

Such as it is, the EU's parliament has a built-in majority in favour of the social market. It is the repository of an unspoken agreement between the left and the multinationals. This 'understanding' appears to have the backing of the bureaucratic elite, not least because it reflects the French method of supporting national business interests in a social market economy.

In effect, the left has said to the multinationals: you can have your markets stitched up for you, if we can indulge ourselves in endless social engineering. Big business has agreed. The result is a largely supportive parliament both from the left and right of the political divide.

In such an environment the endless cataract of EU legislation can be no surprise. A week of committee meetings and a week of parliamentary plenary sessions are allocated for every month except August. It is assumed all that time will be filled with discussion and voting on new legislation.

Basic questions about necessity and cost never arise. Eventually, of course, the EU will have legislated itself to a standstill.

So, if the parliament is a charade, why is it so well attended? In a word - money. If an MEP fails to push his electronic buttons during more than 50% of the votes, his allowances are cut. No wonder MEPs have been described as little more than a highly paid monkeys pressing buttons for bananas.

In one-hour sessions, which always precede lunch, hundreds of votes are taken at breakneck speed on long lists of resolutions and amendments. The purpose is to give democratic legitimacy to what passes for law in the European Union. Voting is so fast MEPs read the papers next day to understand what they decided, and to find out how the commission is interpreting the results.

This torrent of new law feeds the once 'obedient' civil servants back in Britain. They are having the time of their life, enforcing millions of words of regulations and directives from Brussels. Of course they enthuse about the EU. It has - much to their satisfaction - effectively given them a bureaucrats' charter.

Two pages of EU regulation quickly become 20 pages of detailed enforcement - the so-called 'gold-plating' syndrome, unique to the UK.

And if there's trouble, the government minister concerned merely shrugs his shoulders and blames Brussels.

This huge explosion in the bureaucratic enforcement of EU regulations has created a dangerous detachment of the law-making process from accountable government in Britain. It has also highlighted fundamentally different attitudes to the rule of law in the UK and the rest of the EU.

In the past, the British generally upheld and respected the rule of law, at least in part because we knew we could change it at any time. With very few exceptions, a new government could repeal or amend any UK law immediately it took office.

But in the EU, and many continental countries, there is much less respect for the law because it can be difficult to change. Civil servants are in control, and they hate change. Little wonder, then, that ordinary people on the continent tend to ignore laws they don't like, rather than seek change. The EU is beyond salvaging. It should be put out of its misery, or left to those countries that wish to conduct their affairs in this way.

Footnote: Ashley Mote was elected to the European Parliament in June 2004. He is one of ten MEPs elected from the South-East of England region. He sits in the parliament as an independent and has seats on the Constitutional Affairs and Budget Control Committees.

Ashley Mote
tml.2004@virgin.net

nohope187

08-05-2005, 05:38 PM

It reaks of globalization, doesn't it? :-P

nohope187

08-06-2005, 08:25 PM

Draken wrote:
So, if the parliament is a charade, why is it so well attended? In a word - money. If an MEP fails to push his electronic buttons during more than 50% of the votes, his allowances are cut. No wonder MEPs have been described as little more than a highly paid monkeys pressing buttons for bananas.
Sounds alot like Congress over here. :-P

Draken

08-07-2005, 03:32 AM

So why do people bother with wanting "democracy"?

nohope187

08-07-2005, 12:49 PM

It's nice euphemism for tyranny and works like a charm as a great ruse, so they think they're getting freedom when they're really getting shit. :-P But you already knew that. Plain and simple, they bother wanting it cuz they're fuckin' stupid if not blind. 8-)